The Problem with Hell

I've always figured that if there is one thing Hell is not, it's the classic depictions such as Dante's Inferno (the same applies to Heaven, for that matter).



I thought C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce" was a very interesting look at the concept of Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven. His idea of Hell as utterly insubstantial (while Heaven is the absolute reality), brings a different way of thinking about what it is.



There are some questions that can't be easily answered. Is it God's failure when people go to Hell? Should a loving God shield us from consequences with no change (repentance) on our part? How much do we take the Biblical words regarding Hell literally? Much of Jesus' words regarding the afterlife were spoken in the context of parables, so what exactly was his point in those cases? In several cases, Jesus talks of those separated from God as being burned up, so can that be taken to mean Hell is just the complete end of existence for those not entering Heaven?



While I would like to believe that Jesus' actions were able to protect everyone from Hell, it is difficult to avoid the scriptures telling us that there are those who will end up there.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The LEAST Educated Cities In America (PHOTOS)

Being from Fresno, and raised in California's Central Valley, I'm not at all surprised to see several cities here come up on the list (Bakersfield, Fresno, Modesto, Stockton). I have a higher education degree, but the area's economy is heavily based on agriculture, since it has some of the richest topsoil in the world. Ag jobs don't pay a lot, so they are going to attract and hold people with relatively little education.



Unfortunately, this area is an oft-ignored part of the state, despite the huge amount ag contributes to the economy. We have some of the poorest areas in the country.



However, keep in mind that less educated does not mean stupid or lazy. Farmworkers in particular are some of the hardest-working people I've ever met. They have to be, since they typically get paid by how much they get done, and not an hourly wage.



There is a massive immigrant population here, mostly from Mexico and Latin America, but also Southeast Asia and elsewhere. This brings unique challenges. The children of these immigrants often have a difficult time straddling the conflicting cultures of their parents and the U.S. It's not as simple as just getting them schools and libraries, though more attention there wouldn't hurt.



Still, it's also important to recognize that, even if everything was done right (and it currently isn't by a long shot), this will always be a low-education area of the country.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Controversy in Wisconsin

Good story, Mr. Wallis. Despite the horrible things said, I'm glad that you and Mr. Lenz stuck things out with humble truth. That's what it will take, I believe: polite but firm truth, even in the face of dishonest attacks. Some will refuse to change their minds, no matter what (in the face of facts, one such man recently told me that he doesn't believe any news/information organization, but only what he "feels in his heart"), but that does not change what our response should be.



Most people find it difficult to stand up to this kind of behavior, but it must be done. Jesus frequently confronted those of his day who clung to falsehoods and hypocrisy, and he is the model those of us who call ourselves Christians ("Little Christs") should follow. If we don't, the hoaxes and lies persist and grow, lacking firm opposition. The people behind them come to be seen as the majority, and believe they represent that, when, in fact, they are simply the loudest.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Are YOU The Source of Our Nation's Growing Intolerance?

As a fairly opinionated political moderate who enjoys discourse, I've had very similar experiences with both those on the right and on the left over the past 6 years or so. In both cases I've been assumed to be of the opposing political belief system, and subjected to abusive statements without cause as a result. Most recently a conservative told me to "fall off a cliff" when I pointed out some factual errors, but I've had similar experiences in the past with more liberal folks, and not just from the US, either.



Some have insinuated that I was being dishonest when I expressed opinions not in keeping with one party line or another, believing no middle ground could possibly exist. In reality, I have found that the warfare has left a large no-man's-land, in which many moderates have chosen to go underground rather than receive fire from both sides.



Personally, I dislike the word "tolerance," which implies too much passivity for me. I feel a more active virtue, such as respect for those we find ourselves in disagreement with, must be used to counteract poor behavior. We must each find and recognize the value in dissenting opinions, even when we disagree with them, not simply tolerate them.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why can't arguments be more fun?

I had to unfriend a person on Facebook for the first time recently. She was fairly conservative, and tended to post things of that nature. Me being... well... me, I would sometimes dispute some premises, facts, or conclusions, resulting in an argument. From my perspective, it's all in good fun. Unfortunately, it eventually became apparent that she did not share this view (yeah, it took me a while to realize how bad it was, even with my girlfriend getting annoyed with me, between it being the internet and that I can be somewhat oblivious to these things).

Let me make it clear: I didn't unfriend her because of any animosity on my part, nor that I tired of attempts to convince her of my position. She seems like a genuinely decent person, nor is conversion to my side the point (it was apparent early on that was unlikely, anyway). No, the problem was that I was unnecessarily upsetting her, a fellow follower of Christ. I have a hard time keeping my opinions to myself when I see something I disagree with, so it was best just to take away that temptation.

I have continued to receive emails listing replies to some posts I commented on, despite no longer having the ability to see the actual page. I had to raise an eyebrow when one person felt I was a "libtard and provocateur" that should "fall off a cliff." Really? The post I had replied to in that case had some historical inaccuracies I pointed out (keep in mind I consider history important), and for that I should die? Was pointing out that some facts were wrong really that bad?

Truthfully, I don't really understand why differing opinions upset people. I know it's common, and I try to be understanding of their feelings, but it doesn't really make sense to me. Provided there's no ad hominem, bigotry, or just rudeness involved, why would it be upsetting that someone's beliefs are different, even wrong? They are ideas, not people, and I believe people should be the priority.

There's the part of me that wants to blame all this animosity between the liberal and conservative sides over the last decade or so on pundits like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, but honestly it's been going on a long time. If you look at the history books, politics has always produced bitter feuds. In the early days of the USA, the famous duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr is a good example.

Something in human nature just creates a lot of fear, anger, and hate over opposing beliefs. My best guess is that many people consider their beliefs vital to their person, and having those challenged, even by someone who simply says they disagree, threatens their worldview, prompting an angry response, rather than thoughtful debate.

Perhaps there's a remnant of tribalism behind the animosity as well. By disputing their tribe's view of the world, I'm marking myself as a member of a rival tribe, and therefore to be hated. In that case, the ideas aren't even that important. They are only identifiers. What really matters is that I have been identified as one of "them." It would explain why, in multiple cases, statements I've made that were inconsistent with views stereotypical of the opposing tribe I was accused of belonging to were either ignored or discounted (sometimes I was accused of outright lying). From a tribal view, there are few gray areas when it comes to affiliation, people are considered either one of "us," or one of "them."

In this particular situation, it's not that big of a deal. It is a little unfortunate that I have gotten this kind of thing from both ends of the political spectrum, but I'll walk away from this with a little head-scratching and a shrug, as I've done in the past.

Glenn Beck to Jesus: Drop Dead

While my initial reaction was outrage, I've decided to focus more on the humor of being called a CommuNazi (might as well make up a word for a made-up political combination). I've been mentioning that I've had the urge to put myself in a concentration camp, and being communist and nazi at the same time would apparently explain that.



Glenn Beck's astounding ignorance of Religion, Political theory, and History make for a completely absurd set of statements. Given his claim to be a researcher, he should know better, but of course, he doesn't want to. Beck would rather be ignorant than knowledgeable. If he obtained actual knowledge, it might interfere with his ability to make wild claims and bizarre conspiracy theories without apparent cognitive dissonance. Of course, this is all assuming the best of him and that Beck isn't simply lying in order to manipulate others ignorant of these things.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Memo to Obama: Moving Forward Doesn't Mean You Can't Also Look Back

Most of these calls for a public investigation of the Bush administration are from people who have something to gain if it is productive (mostly a personal boost to their ego from being right), but nothing to lose if it is not. I think Obama recognizes that there are some very big political risks to himself that come with attempting to investigate, and possibly prosecute, the former administration. Last I checked, he has a lot of goals for his presidency, and pursuing Bush could jeopardize every one of them. It risks becoming a huge mess that would dominate his presidency, overshadowing everything and further alienating people he may need to work with.



I'm inclined to believe he's taking the right course at this point. Perhaps he may set up an investigation, but it should be as low-key as possible, and not the media circus we saw in the Clinton years. Attempting to prosecute Clinton cost the Republicans in the 1998 congressional election, and Obama knows better than to repeat history with a similarly sloppy move, IMO. I think he should continue to dodge the question, and set up a very quiet preliminary investigation to decide if something more public might be a good move.
About Dick Cheney
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Rev. Jeremiah Wright: 'I've Been Preaching The Same Thing For 40 Years'

They don't come much whiter than myself, but I believe I see where Wright is coming from. I probably would have been shocked by the comments that were all over the media if I'd heard them a decade ago, but not now. I've become friends with black men around Wright's age, and heard some of their stories. One was in the wrong place at the wrong time in LA (across the street from an incident), and was beaten by the cops so badly he lay in jail overnight struggling to breath, while another man futilely yelled for someone to get a doctor for him. He's currently a missionary.



Stories like that opened my eyes as to where the anger comes from. It's easy to forget that it hasn't been that long since the civil rights era. I wasn't born yet, so it was difficult for me to comprehend just how recent it was.



Obama is trying to move beyond Wright's era and message, and I think Wright understands that, too. It seems to me he's willing to be marginalized if it's for the good of the black community, though I think he's understandably upset that much of what he was saying was taken out of context and mis-characterized.



I think Wright's message was better suited to a different time, but that doesn't mean he should be forgotten or made into a villain. He has my respect.
About Jeremiah Wright
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Palin ensures I can't vote McCain

I've already been an Obama supporter for quite a while now, but I did have a certain amount of respect for McCain. He was my candidate of choice back in 2000, but I just haven't felt he's the right guy for the job this time around.

However, while his VP selection of Sarah Palin has been news-grabbing, the things I've read about her actual decisions and governance style leave me certain I could never support a ticket that includes her.

Personally, I find her strong support for killing wolves the most offensive. I like wolves, and I've studied enough to know that killing wolves is very rarely necessary. They moderate their populations themselves, tend to stay clear of people, and prefer to hunt sick and weak animals. They are apex predators, and messing with their population tends to mess with the entire ecosystem.

Below are a few quotes and links to some articles on Palin I find particularly relevant.

"Many lawmakers contend that Ms. Palin is overly reliant on a small inner circle that leaves her isolated. Democrats and Republicans alike describe her as often missing in action. Since taking office in 2007, Ms. Palin has spent 312 nights at her Wasilla home, some 600 miles to the north of the governor's mansion in Juneau, records show.

"During the last legislative session, some lawmakers became so frustrated with her absences that they took to wearing "Where's Sarah?" pins." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?em

"Governor Palin is an active promoter of Alaska's aerial hunting program whereby wolves and bears are shot from the air or chased by airplanes to the point of exhaustion before the pilot lands the plane and a gunner shoots the animals point blank." http://www.defendersactionfund.org/newsroom/sarah_palin.html

"The cunning of the Palin choice as a political strategy is that a candidate who embodies fear of change can be sold as a "maverick" simply because she looks the part. Her marketers have a lot to work with. Palin is not only the first woman on a Republican presidential ticket, but she is young, vibrant and a Washington outsider with no explicit connection to Bush or the war in Iraq. That package looks like change even if what's inside is anything but." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14rich.html?em

What is Your World View? Quiz

It's an interesting quiz. Lots to think about as you answer the questions. The author does use some jargon at a few points, but it's not bad overall.

My results:

You scored as Cultural Creative, Cultural Creatives are probably the newest group to enter this realm. You are a modern thinker who tends to shy away from organized religion but still feels as if there is something greater than ourselves. You are very spiritual, even if you are not religious. Life has a meaning outside of the rational. Cultural Creative 88% Romanticist 50% Postmodernist 50% Existentialist 38% Fundamentalist 31% Idealist 31% Modernist 19% Materialist 19% What is Your World View? created with QuizFarm.com

Dont Feed the Trolls

OK, this is just crappy reporting by Newsweek. It's fearmongering with little hard evidence. All the authors probably did was a quick websearch to find what they wanted.

However, what seems completely lost on them is that comments left on blogs or social sites often do not reflect real-life viewpoints. Extreme viewpoints will often be the most visible, and it's very common for idiots to mimic that kind of thing in order to gain attention. It's much like kids who emulate Jackass by hurting themselves pulling stupid stunts, then post it on YouTube.

As with the theory by Penny Arcade (profanity warning) I previously mentioned, people act like complete morons when they feel they have a certain level of anonimity and an audience.

So, back to the blog I referenced initially. The offending comment was quoted as,

“Koreans are the most hotheaded and macho of East Asians,” wrote one unnamed commentator on the Sepia Mutiny blog. “They are also sick and tired of losing their Korean girlfriends to white men with an Asian fetish.”

Note that this guy isn't targeting Koreans in general, but Korean men, and is making the effort at an extra over-the-top jab with the comment about their girlfriends. That's the point. It's a juvenile attention-getting device: the guy is emulating racist behavior so that people will attack him. He probably thought that last part was pretty darn clever.

So, congratulations, Newsweek. You gave some stupid kid more fame than he could have hoped for just for making an ass of himself.

Disturbing Internet Behavior

The anonymity the internet can so easily provide has made for ups and downs. Some people feel enabled to express themselves in various good ways, and some just waste it by treating others like crap. I really hat to see cyberbullying get this disgusting. It's not an unusual problem on the internet, but this has been worse than most. Death threats are just unacceptable, and illegal for a reason.

Unfortunately, discovering the identity of this person may be quite difficult. It appears that this started with a script kiddie (a pejorative term for a hacker wannabe who just uses tools others develop) hijacking another blogger's computer.

This is not new behavior. A webcomic called Penny Arcade came up with their own theory for this behavior in 2004 (warning: profanity). Unfortunately, some people never develop much of a moral code beyond avoiding getting caught. I got to see this in retail, in which customers or employees would steal things the minute they thought no-one was looking.

This is just silly.

I've seen stuff from 9/11 conspiracy theorists before, and, while I don't necessarily believe it, I could see how it would appeal to those so inclined. However, I am completely baffled by the way they seem to be rallying around the recent discovery that a BBC reporter apparently said that building 7 of the World Trade Center had fallen about 20 minutes beforehand. For them, it apparently is proof that the building was intentionally demolished using explosives, because someone apparently sent out a press release of some kind too early, or a reporter read from a script too soon.

Laying aside everything else a person may or may not believe about 9/11, there is only one word needed to poke a huge hole in this latest piece of "evidence": Why? Why would a press release be necessary, much less a script? Every camera that any news agency could find was being pointed in that direction by then, so why would it be necessary to script what is completely obvious to all? There was plenty of speculation for a large period of time beforehand regarding the expected fall of WTC 7, so everyone was already watching for it to happen. A press release or script would put the conspiracists in the delicate position of trusting that none of the large number of people involved in the media would expose them. Why would people supposedly smart enough to pull off such a massive attack under false pretenses do something so stupid?

I find it particularly bizarre the number of times I've seen this referred to as a "smoking gun" or some other reference to how conclusive this discovery is. Even if there is some kind of conspiracy, this has to be some of the worst evidence for it I've heard yet.



read more | digg story

Sometimes reading the article makes all the difference.

"Virgos have an increased risk of vomiting during pregnancy, Pisces have an increased risk of heart failure, and Libras have an increased risk of fracturing their pelvises, according to latest research." Sounds like the latest attempt to legitimize pseudoscience, right? Nope, it actually part of a study that "was conducted to highlight that research sometimes finds patterns even when there is no association in reality."

There is no shortage of people out there who will draw dubious conclusions from the latest research. This is essentially a parody of that. Statistics are an attempt to turn real life things into numbers, which is imperfect, and can produce anomalies, or may not mean what they seem at first glance.

"One way to reduce the chances of drawing a wrong conclusion is to try and reproduce unexpected results in further studies." However, a repeat of the study did not replicate the results, meaning that it is very unlikely that the statistical probabilities exist in real life. Sorry, astrologers of the world, this one doesn't really help you after all.



read more | digg story

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

I've recently been seeing quite a few ads for a children's book entitled Why Mommy is a Democrat, advertised as "The book George Bush doesn't want your kids to read!"

After checking out the website, I definitely wonder about the wisdom of the book. Obviously, I'm not going to question any parent's right to buy this book and read it to their children if they choose, nor their intentions in doing so. I just can't help but wonder why you would want to instill "Democrat" in a child, instead of focusing on the values themselves, and let them worry about party affiliation when they get older.

One thing that bothers me about the book is that, just based on the sample pages, it seems to oversimplify political positions a bit in a way that makes Democrats the "good guy." A children's book has to be simple, but giving a child a false impression of the world can sometimes make for more difficult explanations later.

Of course, I do have a rather different upbringing than many I know. My mom is a dedicated Republican, while my dad has been a longtime Democrat. Upon hearing of this, one of my friends once commented, "no wonder you're a moderate."

I'm Big in New Zealand

As part of a recent forum topic, I was doing a couple of Google searches on myself. My real name is fairly common, it seems, so I decided to look it up based on the nickname I commonly use: "Sxeptomaniac". The name is, so far, unique to me, but among the expected results, I got a bit of a surprise. It seems a columnist for the New Zealand Herald found some of my words worth quoting in an opinion piece about relaxed grammar and spelling online. I'm quoted right at the end of the piece:

While I was surfing the net, looking for English language massacres on message boards (they're there and simply too numerous to list), I found a great debate going on between Geek Culture forum members who were taking a new member to task for failing to use basic grammar and correct spelling in his postings.

Sxeptomaniac put it best: "Spelling and grammar are about organising your thoughts in ways that will make sense to others without requiring them to consciously work at it. That's why lack of grammar and spelling is seen as rude here; you're asking us to expend extra effort to read your posts, because you were too lazy to expend that effort yourself when typing them."

Couldn't have put it better myself.

It's pretty fun to find how a little comment of mine ended up in a newspaper all the way across the Pacific.

Of course, the part of me that is quite anal about my writing can't help but think how my wording could have been just a little bit better.

Barack Obama

I've recently been getting interested in the Draft Obama movement.

What I think really stands out about Obama for me is that he doesn't use hot-button issues the way many career politicians do. Many use little sound bites (involving easy, one-sided answers to complex problems) in order to signal to certain groups of people that he/she is "one of them." They then reinforce those kinds of opinions by repeatedly pushing those buttons in order to reinforce support among those who have the same view, while further alienating those who do not. It's the politics of the last 14 years.

I'm definitely ready for something different.

Never happier to be using Linux

I recently was reading through this article on Windows Vista's content protection. If it's even half as bad as the article suggests, Vista is going to be one of the worst operating systems ever. This article didn't have anything better to say.

Overall, Vista's content-protection functionality seems like an astonishingly short-sighted piece of engineering, concentrating entirely on content protection with no consideration given to the enormous repercussions of the measures employed. It's something like the PC equivalent of the (hastily dropped) proposal mooted in Europe to put RFID tags into high-value banknotes as an anti-counterfeiting measure, completely ignoring the fact that the major users of this technology would end up being criminals who would use it to remotely identify the most lucrative robbery targets.

I've never been happier to be an Ubuntu user. Unfortunately, if the author of the article is correct, I won't be able to dodge the increased hardware costs. If it is that bad, I suspect a new branch of hardware manufacturers dedicated to non-Windows users will open up.

Content protection is getting way out of hand. It's gotten to the point where it's often easier and safer to pirate content rather than purchase it. I'm going to stick with legal alternatives myself, but I wouldn't be surprised if, at some point, I end up buying protected versions of music or video, then downloading the pirated versions for actual use. If things continue down the present path, what option will I have left?

Thoughts on Steve Irwin's environmentalism

Like many, I was saddened and a bit surprised to learn of Steve Irwin's sudden death last week. However, given his familiarity with the reptiles he typically handled, I always figured that if anything happened to him, one of them wouldn't be the cause.

The odd thing is reading the mixed opinions various environmentalists have of Irwin and his career. I was initially a little surprised that environmentalists would dislike him, but it makes sense on further reading.

Take the words of Germaine Greer, for example. She writes as if wildlife is supposed to be seen from a distance, and Steve Irwin's love of getting close to wildlife was harmful to it. The epitome of her rant is that "The animal world has finally taken its revenge on Irwin."

Frankly, I think Greer's opinions are a perfect example of the absurdity of a certain branch of the environmentalist movement. These are the same kinds of people whose ideal of nature is to imagine "a world without humans." That imagined world is an absurdity from a philosophical standpoint. A world without humanity would have no-one to consider it beautiful; by imagining it, we are imposing a value judgement that is human to the core. The contradictory nature of this kind of anti-human environmentalism is exactly why they so often fail to be able to even communicate with political opponents.

What Steve Irwin understood better than many leading environmentalists is that, in truth, environmentalism is a selfish endeavor. I say this not to discredit the movement, but to explain why it is truly so vital. Saving habitat, preventing global warming, preventing extinction of various species, etc. is about protecting humanity and the quality of life many of us enjoy. We can damage the environment all we would like, and it will eventually recover, in a different form; however, we would not. Environmentalism is also about beauty and our heritage, and protecting it for the same reasons we would protect the Mona Lisa. Steve Irwin understood the beauty of wildlife, and sought to share that, and instill a desire to protect it for our future, as well as for our descendants. I believe that those who portray environmentalism as an altruistic endeavor do it a disservice, turning away some who would otherwise be more sympathetic.

So, we bid farewell to Steve Irwin, a man I consider to be one of the great true environmentalists of our times. The animal world was lucky to have you as long as it did.

Cindy Sheehan to run for senate?

So, Cindy Sheehan, the infamous (to Republicans) woman who is most famous for camping outside President Bush's ranch thinks that maybe she should be a senator?

She lost her son in Iraq, so I can see why her attacks on Bush could come from personal grief. I do sometimes wonder about those who seem to use her as some kind of figurehead for the anti-war movement, though.

Can she win a senate seat on her anti-war platform? I highly doubt it. California certainly is home to some of the most liberal people in the country, but it also has a decent population of conservatives here in the Central Valley, and a sizeable population of moderates spread throughout. Sheehan might make a decent showing, but she's a little controversial to do well, and I don't think she'll get much support at all if her only platform is "bring the troops home right now."

There is the possibility that she could get elected if she were to show that she has a political stance that actually has something to do with California itself, and not just Iraq. Senator Feinstein, who Sheehan would be running against, would have to basically throw the election, too. Feinstein is a pretty well-entrenched incumbent, and she hasn't made any major mistakes which would significantly erode her support, either.

The last thing I have to wonder is what Cindy Sheehan thinks she can do if she were to win the seat. At that point, Bush would only have two more years in office, and Sheehan would be a brand new senator with no prior experience in political office (as far as I can tell). By the time she could really get much going, Bush would be out of office. I suppose she could make an effort to try Bush for war crimes, but I don't see there being much support for that.

When I look at it from the perspective of the above, there is the possibility that Sheehan will not run at all. It could be that she is actually trying to pressure Feinstein into supporting her agenda in the senate. It would actually be a lot smarter than fighting it out. If she can pressure an experienced incumbent into going along with her, Sheehan will gain far more than trying to do it herself. However, she is not a person I would equate with subtle political maneuvering. She so far has wielded what power she has the same way Southern Baptists often do: like a bludgeon, and often a bit clumsily.